What do guidelines and systematic reviews tell us about the management of medically unexplained symptoms in primary care?

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are symptoms for which the origin remains unclear despite adequate history taking, physical examination, and additional investigations.1 An estimated 3–11% of patients visiting general practice repeatedly consult their GP for MUS.2,3 MUS exist along a continuum ranging from self-limiting symptoms, to recurrent and persistent symptoms, through to symptom disorders.4 Although there are various terms for the condition, for example unexplained physical symptoms, functional symptoms, or somatoform symptoms, we have chosen to use MUS in this article because this is the most frequently used term. This review aims to address current problems with the management of undifferentiated MUS; specific syndromes within the MUS spectrum, such as chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome, are excluded from discussion. Patients with persistent MUS suffer from their symptoms, are functionally impaired, and are at risk of potentially harmful additional testing and treatment.5 Furthermore, these patients commonly express dissatisfaction with the medical care they receive during their illness.6 They feel stigmatised and not taken seriously.7 GPs often experience patients with persistent MUS as difficult and frustrating to manage.8 In addition, MUS are associated with reduced health-related quality of life, higher healthcare and social costs, and costs associated with lost productivity.9,10 The effects of many treatment strategies have been studied in recent decades. However, not all interventions are acceptable or feasible in routine primary care. In the light of the central role of the GP in managing MUS, we will discuss the importance of consultation skills and the effects of specific treatments in primary care. We will do this by way of a narrative review using available national guidelines and Cochrane Reviews in this field

“Medically unexplained” symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification

Background: Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called “medically unexplained symptoms” (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions. Discussion: We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient’s risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors. Conclusion: Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms

Management of patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a descriptive study

Background: In 2013 the Dutch guideline for management of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) was published. The aim of this study is to assess medical care for patients with persistent MUS as recorded in their electronic medical records, to investigate if this is in line with the national guideline for persistent MUS and whether there are changes in care over time. Methods: We conducted an observational study of adult primary care patients with MUS. Routinely recorded health care data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients participating in an ongoing randomised controlled trial in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. Data on general practitioners’ (GPs’) management strategies during MUS consultations were collected in a 5-year period for each patient prior. Management strategies were categorised according to the options offered in the Dutch guideline. Changes in management over time were analysed. Results: Data were collected from 1035 MUS consultations (77 patients). Beside history-taking, the most frequently used diagnostic strategies were physical examination (24.5%) and additional investigations by the GP (11.1%). Frequently used therapeutic strategies were prescribing medication (24.6%) and providing explanations (11.2%). As MUS symptoms persisted, GPs adjusted medication, discussed progress and scheduled follow-up appointments more frequently. The least frequently used strategies were exploration of all complaint dimensions (i.e. somatic, cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social) (3.5%) and referral to a psychologist (0.5%) or psychiatrist (0.1%). Conclusions: Management of Dutch GPs is partly in line with the Dutch guideline. Medication was possibly prescribed more frequently than recommended, whereas exploration of all complaint dimensions, shared problem definition and referral to mental health care were used less

Recognition of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms by family physicians: results of a focus group study

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) form a heterogeneous group and frequently attend their family physician (FP). Little is known about how FPs recognize MUPS in their patients. We conducted a focus group study to explore how FPs recognize MUPS and whether they recognize specific subgroups of patients with MUPS. Targeting such subgroups might improve treatment outcomes. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted with in total 29 Dutch FPs. Two researchers independently analysed the data applying the principles of constant comparative analysis in order to detect characteristics to recognize MUPS and to synthesize subgroups. RESULTS: FPs take into account various characteristics when recognizing MUPS in their patients. More objective characteristics were multiple MUPS, frequent and long consultations and many referrals. Subjective characteristics were negative feelings towards patients and the feeling that the FP cannot make sense of the patient's story. Experience of the FP, affinity with MUPS, consultation skills, knowledge of the patient's context and the doctor-patient relationship seemed to influence how and to what extent these characteristics play a role. Based on the perceptions of the FPs we were able to distinguish five subgroups of patients according to FPs: 1) the anxious MUPS patient, 2) the unhappy MUPS patient, 3) the passive MUPS patient, 4) the distressed MUPS patient, and 5) the puzzled MUPS patient. These subgroups were not mutually exclusive, but were based on how explicit and predominant certain characteristics were perceived by FPs. CONCLUSIONS: FPs believe that they can properly identify MUPS in their patients during consultations and five distinct subgroups of patients could be distinguished. If these subgroups can be confirmed in further research, personalized treatment strategies can be developed and tested for their effectiveness

The association between medically unexplained physical symptoms and health care use over two years and the influence of depressive and anxiety disorders and personality traits: a longitudinal study

Background Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are highly prevalent and are associated with frequent health care use (HCU). MUPS frequently co-occur with psychiatric disorders. With this study we examined the longitudinal association between MUPS and HCU over 2 years and the influence of depressive and anxiety disorders and personality traits on this association. Methods We analysed follow-up data from 2045 to 2981 participants from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), a multisite cohort study. The study population included participants with a current depressive and/or anxiety disorder, participants with a lifetime risk and/or subthreshold symptoms for depressive and/or anxiety disorders and healthy controls. HCU, measured with the Trimbos and iMTA questionnaire on Costs associated with Psychiatric illness (TIC-P), was operationalized as the number of used medical services and the number of associated contacts. MUPS were measured with the Four Dimensional Symptoms Questionnaire, depressive and anxiety disorders with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and personality traits with the NEO Five-Factory Inventory. Measurements were taken at baseline, 1 and 2 years follow-up. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE), using HCU at all three measurements as (multivariate) outcome. GEE also takes into account the dependency of observations within participants. Results MUPS were positively associated with HCU over 2 years (medical services: RR 1.020, 95 % CI 1.017–1.022; contacts: RR 1.037, 95 % CI 1.030–1.044). Neuroticism and depression had the strongest influence on the associations. After adjustment for these factors, the associations between MUPS and HCU weakened, but remained significant (services: RR 1.011, 95 % CI 1.008–1.014; contacts: RR 1.023, 95 % CI 1.015–1.032). Conclusions Our results show that MUPS were positively associated with HCU over 2 years, even after adjusting for depressive and anxiety disorders and personality traits